Perry vetoes Texting-While-Driving bill (Howe, Happy: transportation, horse, automobile)

[cinnamon_toast]

Passing a texting law is in no way approaching a nanny state. That is absurd. If you are taking the Libertarian stance, you should know that Libertarians promote freedom insofar it doesn't have the potential to excessively injure others. It seems most everyone is in agreement that texting while driving is an activity that can and will kill. No one is talking about banning eating, talking, drinking. And your logic that if we eradicate texting then we MUST eradicate other activities is flawed. Well, unless this does become than nanny state you are envisioning. But in Texas??? Come on, seriously?!

[doctorjef]

Why have traffic lights and stop signs? Shouldn't people be able to make decisions about when to stop and go by themselves -- as responsible adults.

[TexasHorseLady]

Do you really think that nanny states spring full blown from the head of Zeus? It's not that way - they come into existence one tiny step at a time, one tiny law at a time, until they're big enough to take over and the damage to the very idea that adults should be have as adults and are capable of recognizing what constitutes reckless driving without having it spelled out minutely has been done. At which point, if the nanny staters are lucky, the citizens have learned to "think" what they're told to think rather than using reasoning for themselves because they're entirely out of the habit.

This is about a lot more than texting. If you advocate laws as minute as this, why on earth should you object to laws that dictate, oh, let's say, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? It's no different; it's simply a matter of degree, and degree is something that can be stretched to suit. After all, it can be (and has been) said that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a danger to the health and the marriage contracts of the rest of society. Why should the exact acts permitted that could not risk the health of the rest of the population not be spelled out?

I know it's hard for some to follow things down the path they're setting them on and see the possible and probable consequences to themselves, but that path is most definitely there.

[cinnamon_toast]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

At which point, if the nanny staters are lucky, the citizens have learned to "think" what they're told to think rather than using reasoning for themselves because they're entirely out of the habit.

Not sure where you get your information from, but I think that YOU have lost the ability to think on your own. This is right-wing hysterical propaganda without a shred of logic.

[kenshi]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

This is about a lot more than texting. If you advocate laws as minute as this, why on earth should you object to laws that dictate, oh, let's say, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? It's no different; it's simply a matter of degree, and degree is something that can be stretched to suit. After all, it can be (and has been) said that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a danger to the health and the marriage contracts of the rest of society. Why should the exact acts permitted that could not risk the health of the rest of the population not be spelled out?

An old friend of mine recently ran his truck into a tree and died because he was texting while driving. Had he hit another car, there's a good chance they would have died as well. I've never known anyone who died or got injured because their neighbors were buggering each other. Why don't you compare it to something that's actually similar, like drunk driving? I'm sure with your anarchist screw-public-safety attitude, that should be legal as well but few will agree.

[L210]

Isn't this the guy who made an executive order (bypassing the legislature) for mandatory Gardasil shots (a very new vaccine) and wanting Medicaid to pay for it?

[TexasHorseLady]

Yep, sure is!

[Sunderpig2]

He's looking after and helping the insurance industry (one of his many buddies that give him money). Texting while driving tends to generate business for insurance companies.

[doctorjef]

Perry may be motivated to help out the insurance industry but I'm not sure that vetoing a prohibition on texting while driving would stem from that. Yes, insurance companies want your business but they also want to pay out as little as possible. It would be counter-intuitive for insurance companies to oppose a ban on texting while driving.

[EasilyAmused]

He has to win the nomination first.

I think if you restructed the Poll to "Would you vote for Perry over Obama?" you might get some different responses. Since the majority of the country is highly unhappy right now, many will vote ABO.